|
Tellico: Then and Now
So, let me get this straight. First, we do a little ethnic cleansing and move those pesky Cherokee off their land. We relocate those who actually survive the journey out to a new chunk of less fertile land that we can spare out west. Oh, and we don’t pay them anything for their land, and they get to take what they can carry with them on the trip.
Then, we settle the land with white farmers. It’s really good farmland, and they do well there.
Then, we decide that they have to move so we can flood their land to build a dam that is minimally useful and no one really wants. But TVA has to build the dam because they have to create some jobs for their workers.
Then we fight over that plan for five or so years because the farmers understandably don’t want to go, and there is good fishing and the snail darter there, and we are paying them a pittance for the land.
The more they quarrel the more hysterical TVA gets, and the grander their claims of benefit become. So TVA throws their weight around and wins, and the dam plan gets shoved down everyone’s throats and the farmers have to go, and, no, they can’t continue to farm the land that is not going to be underwater because, uh...because we said so.
And then we build the dam and make some great payrolls, and then well, we run out of dams to build and can’t think of anything else to do, so we start cutting TVA jobs. And now we sell this lovely lakefront property with buried Cherokee on it to rich folks so that they can retire from the North. And they honor the Cherokee by naming their streets after them with names they cannot pronounce and do not know the meaning of. And in the meantime, we have saved Chattanooga twice from flooding, and we have some more mediocre fishing, and a little barge traffic, and a few new payrolls, and we have put some of those folks back to work that we stole the land from and put out of business.
And no one left at TVA can really say how this happened. Hey, I got an idea: why don’t we make restitution by bringing back the Cherokee and putting them to work at the nuclear plants? They can farm and milk cows on the land around the power plants in their spare time, and we’ll pay the displaced farmers a consulting fee to help them get started. We can fund it with proceeds from selling the vacant TVA tower.
That will solve two problems: the white man’s guilt, and the energy crisis. I like it. Who do I have to speak to?
Connie Wallace
Knoxville
Tellico: a Success Story
I enjoyed reading Jack Neely’s Tellico Dam Revisited report in the Dec. 9 issue of Metro Pulse. He did a first-rate job with the update, and overall, it was fair and accurate.
The story was especially of interest to me because: 1) as a child, I was there in the very beginning when the construction of Fort Loudon Dam was nearing completion (I grew up less than 200 yards from the location of the future Tellico Dam canal), and the final days of the Fort Loudon Lake preparation included excavation for the initial portion of the canal destined for the “Fort Loudon Extension,” which, of course, was not completed at that time; 2) I was there almost 30 years later at the start of the Tellico Dam Project when my family’s property was acquired by TVA for the Dam’s construction; 3) I was there, ironically, as the first CEO of the Tellico Reservoir Development Agency when the State created the quasi-corporation that purchased the 11,000-plus acres from TVA for development; and 4) I was also there when the agency’s office was destroyed by an arsonist in 1986.
Therefore, I do have more than a passing interest in the Tellico Dam project, and I feel that, even though Jack Neely did an outstanding job in recounting the entire history of Tellico Dam, three important considerations for evaluating its success were overlooked.
First, to be completely fair, it should be recognized that there was almost a seven-year delay from the time the Dam was basically completed until the lake was impounded and development could actually begin in the mid-1980s. This fact alone would alter the results of any projections.
Second, rather than it being implied it should be clearly stated in any article about Tellico Dam that the term of 25 years, always offered by TVA as the build-out for the project, was never a realistic time frame. After almost 25 years, less than one-half of the industrial land has been developed, but for that much land, a long period of time for development is not unusual—but customary. And one-half of the residential land may have been sold, but certainly less than one-half has been built-out and occupied. Development will take place, and those early and lofty TVA projections will be attained, but more likely in 50 to 60 years rather than 25.
Third, the Dam’s early history, and the stigma from its history, made it a difficult task to convince representatives of prospective industry or qualified residential developers to even look at the property, much less make a decision to buy land and make substantial capital investment. Considerable development has happened with a lot of effort from the likes of Charles Hall, Larry Colaw, Ron Hammontree, and many other individuals too numerous to list—and that development will continue well into the future.
With more than 37 years of experience in economic development, I feel I am qualified to make the statement: None of the development that has occurred in the Tellico Lake area would have happened if TVA had not conceived, for whatever reason, the idea for Tellico Dam. The initial projections for jobs have almost been met in spite of unusual obstacles, and the estimates for capital investment have been exceeded. I believe the people of Loudon, Monroe, and Blount Counties will forgive Jim Gober’s improbable increases in his projections (and his overselling) in his attempt to convince local officials and Congress to support the project which he knew would eventually be positive. The fact is, his original estimates have turned out to be close to correct.
In any event, by almost anyone’s standards, the Tellico Dam Project has been a success, and I am very pleased to have made a small contribution to that success.
Jack Hammontree
Athens
Coulda Moved that House!
In a sense, this is “water over the dam,” but it may be news to some people! The demolition of the historic J. Allen Smith House, particularly given the strong community effort that was invested in saving it, was avoidable!
While relocation is less desirable, since the historic significance of any structure is diminished when moved from its original site, it is feasible and not that unusual. We’ve all heard fairly recently about a large lighthouse at Cape Hatteras being moved to escape the eroding beach. Locally, relocation was seriously considered to “save” the Baker-Peters House, but became unnecessary.
I was involved several years ago as an architect in the relocation of an historic family home in Dandridge, which was being damaged by its close proximity to a state highway and was successfully moved—in that case, a significant distance up a slope. It can be done!
Gene Burr
Knoxville
A Valid Preservation Tool
Like many in Knoxville, I was very disappointed with the recent decision to raze the J. Allen Smith House. While it is true that not every old building is historic and not every old building should be saved, the J. Allen Smith House was, by any accepted standard in the field of preservation, historically and architecturally significant and fully deserving of preservation.
Also troubling is that the legal issues raised by the Smith House case have been characterized inaccurately as a fundamental debate over private property rights. The central issue at bar was actually one of procedural due process, not property rights. The Tennessee Supreme Court based its opinion on statutory planning, notice and hearing requirements rather than any balancing test between historic preservation and property rights. In fact, the court specifically praised the intent of the ordinance, if not its application.
Cherokee ultimately was allowed to demolish the house not because they owned the property or because the city was without the legal authority to stop them; they were allowed to demolish the house because, in the judgment of the Tennessee Supreme Court, the city failed in this instance to provide the requisite public notice prior to enacting an otherwise legal ordinance that prevented the demolition of historically significant properties. Had such procedural requirements been met to the satisfaction of the courts, both the city’s ordinance and the Smith House would still stand.
The city’s ordinance was invalidated not on principle, but on procedural grounds. However slight, this is an important distinction and one that heretofore has been absent from public discourse.
The legal standing of local preservation ordinances—first validated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978)—is not weakened by the J. Allen Smith House opinion. Individuals and private entities do not now enjoy, nor have they ever enjoyed, unrestricted license with respect to the use and disposition of real property.
Historic designation remains a legal, appropriate and widely successful means of effectuating a valid public purpose: the preservation of significant historic resources. This is a fact plainly illustrated by the tremendous cultural and economic achievements of communities more preservation-minded than Knoxville.
David R. Arning
Palmetto Preservation Works
Greenville, S.C.
T’warn’t the Town
In an otherwise excellent article [Dec. 2] on the Turkey Creek Development, Ms. Paige Travis left out an important critical issue—the impact on the surrounding residents. In fact, the only mention of the impact on the nearby citizens of Farragut and Knox County was an unfortunate misquote of Farragut Mayor Eddy Ford.
The town of Farragut did not negotiate 100-foot buffers with some of the larger stores that now occupy Turkey Creek; rather, the Concerned Citizens of StoneCrest and Powell Acres (CCS&PA) and the SweetBriar Homeowners Association (SBHOA) negotiated a series of win-win agreements with the Turkey Creek Land Partners (TCLP) over the last nine years that have resulted in specific benefits to each party.
For example, the CCS&PA and TCLP negotiated: 1.) a 50-foot no-build restricted zone adjacent to the 50-foot buffer zone between the town and the city (that now includes the Target and Wal-Mart) to match the buffer that exists in the Farragut portion of the development; 2.) a nearly one-mile long, eight-foot-tall wood stockade fence to protect the residents from the largest commercial development in the county; 3.) a 100-foot buffer between the residents and the Baptist Hospital complex in exchange for the removal of 50-foot no-road buffer that bisected the Duncan property, the land which was to become the hospital; 4.) an agreement to place a homeowner on the developer’s architectural review board; and 5.) in cooperation with the late Larry Fleming of KUB and with LCUB, the transfer of the 69-kV power line from the rear corner of StoneCrest into the boundary of the development.
As is well known, the town of Farragut negotiated an agreement in 1988 with the city of Knoxville and the then property owner, Mr. Goodman, a Florida developer, to permit the city of Knoxville to annex west to the current boundary noted on the Metro Pulse cover and to put in place a 100-foot buffer between the Farragut portion of the Goodman property and the property owners along the western portion of the development. The eastern section was accorded only a 50-foot buffer between city and town. That section included StoneCrest, the Matthews’ property (soon to be the Turkey Cove residential development), the Duncan property, and a section of SweetBriar. The town did, however, assist in the discussions, and did concur on proposed buffer, zoning, drainage and wetlands, and site plans presented to the town by TCLP and with the support of the residents.
This process worked because the residents and the developer chose to pursue what I believe is a unique approach in Knox County. The residents and developer discussed, argued, disagreed, and finally reached mutually acceptable accords because they knew it was important to find common ground. The homeowners recognized that the development had substantial financial and political support in the county. The developer recognized the importance of working with the residents because they, too, worked and lived within the community and therefore had a stake in its long-term success.
Credit for the success of this approach, which should serve as a model for other developers and residents, is due to many of the participants. For the developers and their colleagues, credit should be accorded to Mr. John Turley, TCLP general manager, and especially Mr. Jim Nixon, the chief negotiator. Others, including Mr. Mike Edwards, Mr. Harold Cannon, Mr. David Robinette, and Mr. Arthur Seymour, Jr., made invaluable contributions to working out the details and implementing the agreements. The homeowners deserve credit for clearly defining their goals and working together and with the community resources to achieve those goals over what to many still seems like a lifetime of construction, noise and dust. They also benefited from the invaluable advice of their attorney, Mr. David Piper.
The town should be credited for its citizen leaders, dedicated staff, and thoughtful ordinances that served as the fulcrum for the resolution of these agreements. No major development can spring up next to a residential region without some discord. The key to what has happened in Farragut and Turkey Creek was and still is a willingness to find solutions that work for all the stakeholders.
For the Concerned Citizens of StoneCrest and Powell Acres,
Thomas M. Rosseel
Farragut
December 23, 2004 • Vol. 14, No. 52
© 2004 Metro Pulse
|
| 
